Is there a God?

[Teppler]

The fact that we can’t just evolve into anything and I’m talking about over thousands of years, the speed which observable “evolution” actually happens, if you believe that, points to the idea of genetic engineering of some sort.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The fact that we can’t just evolve into anything and I’m talking about over thousands of years, the speed which observable “evolution” actually happens, if you believe that, points to the idea of genetic engineering of some sort.

Thousands of years is practically nothing in evolutionary timescales, but I agree a reptilian, gene-splicing Jesus seems the more likely answer.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The fact that we can’t just evolve into anything and I’m talking about over thousands of years, the speed which observable “evolution” actually happens, if you believe that, points to the idea of genetic engineering of some sort.

I think the interesting thing is that, in theory, it should be much easier for a modern human's descendants evolve into 'fish' than a modern fish's descendants evolve into a 'human'.

Generally, when animals evolve, they won't lose all their genes used by their previous form. The function of those genes will either be altered, or they simply won't be expressed (the genes are turned off).

In other words, a human should still contain much of the programming to produce a fish, where as a fish would have very little programming to make a human; only things from archaic systems that a human inherited from his fish ancestors.

[Teppler]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think the interesting thing is that, in theory, it should be much easier for a modern human's descendants evolve into 'fish' than a modern fish's descendants evolve into a 'human'.

Generally, when animals evolve, they won't lose all their genes used by their previous form. The function of those genes will either be altered, or they simply won't be expressed (the genes are turned off).

In other words, a human should still contain much of the programming to produce a fish, where as a fish would have very little programming to make a human; only things from archaic systems that a human inherited from his fish ancestors.

Do you think a fish could evolve into a human given hundred of thousands of years and the right environmental pressures?

[Jimjam]

1 fish, 1 man ... with steady environmental pressures? No.

I think the wider understanding of evolution, while it acknowledges the gradual accumulation of generational changes, it doesn't appreciate the degree of importance of multiple extinction events culling chaff, creating islandisation, upending pre-existing ecosystems, opening niches, and a huge number of other factors I can't even consider, all of which are a way bigger element in the diversification of species.

Without these chaotic elements evolution doesn't seem likely to produce new species, just refine the ones that exist to be extremely well adapted to the niche they occupy.

[feniin]

I really feel bad for all you anti-intellectuals. Just because you don't understand the science behind something doesn't mean that it's inaccurate.

It's terrifying to me that you guys are responsible for making decisions that affect other people.

[SanityRevoked]

Originally Posted by feniin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's terrifying to me that you guys are responsible for making decisions that affect other people.

[rebeccablack]

this thread is one of the most alarming things ive read on the internet in some time

[azeth]

Originally Posted by rebeccablack [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

this thread is one of the most alarming things ive read on the internet in some time

I came here to post this. This solleks guy is... Terrifying. This dude actually exists

Originally Posted by solleks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

mainsteam science is a joke. nixon didnt make a live phone call to the moon in 69. there was no live video footage of a moon landing. the ISS pictures and videos are complete garbage and obviously fake. the physics of a ship going to "space" doesnt match at all what we see.

evolution has been proven a complete farce ( wheres the evidence of it?) even scientist themselves say that the universe has a decaying nature, how did we get here then.

overall the only good argument AGAINST God is government ( govern - control, ment - mind) funded mainstream science. its constantly shown and shoved down the publics throat.. we endure massive amounts of propaganda every day.
there is a natural battle of good and evil. this place is a test.

Hoooolllyyy shit

[Teppler]

You know I’ve seen a number of people insult that man now, how about just proving him wrong?